In response to the news blurb about the Marine who put two rounds ("double tap") in a wounded insurgent's head in Fallujah, here's a response from a Marine:

"It's a safety issue, pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and move on.

Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be a waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist. Its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as "unlawful combatants." It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact.

Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers.

Here is your typical Marine sitrep (situation report): You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down.

So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest made of explosives. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room .

You're already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!!!

What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mind set that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to "take prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same. Marines end up getting hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self evident. If you are not a veteran, then at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in the NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes"."

Just out of curiosity, can anyone give me the total number of Americans who have had their heads chopped off in Iraq?------------------------------------I can think of around a dozen or so off the top of my head.

We keep hearing all kinds of stuff being justified because of American civilians "having their head's chopped off", as if it were an everyday occurrence.

I'm not sure where this is going. Are you saying if a Marine or Soldier goes into a room full of shot up insurgents he (or she really) is supposed to play nice guy and see if there are any wounded needing treatment? I'm one of the many Americans against us being in Iraq, but by God if my son is ever in that situation, I want him to start blasting away and making sure those guys are all dead.

I'd rather visit him in Leavenworth than Arlington. Sorry, but if it's the life of a #$%^& insurgent or my son, it's them to die.

I'm sorry, but what he is describing IS a war crime. It doesn't matter if the enemy is ignoring Geneva conventions. Part of what protects us as a military is living by a higher standard even if our enemies do not.

It is one thing to kill someone because they are a threat. It is quite another to kill someone because they MIGHT be a threat.

As for this specific point.Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be a waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist. Its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

Corpsmen ARE expected to treat enemy wounded according to the Geneva Conventions. It's not fraud, waste, or abuse if he is using the tools given him in accordance with doctrine. Since the US military adheres (at least theoretically) to the Geneva Conventions, treating a wounded enemy combatant is doctrine.

It is attitudes like this that recently got the Marine Special Forces kicked out of Afghanistan.

I'm bothered by a lot of what he said and based on some on the way he phrased a couple things, I question whether or not this is really from a combat veteran. Yes, there are situations where you have to take this approach, but it's pretty rare. For the most part this sort of conduct is strictly out of bounds. It reminds me of the story of those Marines in Haditha. Their PL uses the excuse that they acted according to procedure, but not in proportion to the threat.

It's a bit like collateral damage. There are times you have to accept a certain level of civilian casualties. But it must be proportionate with the importance of the target. For example, nobody is going to complain much that when Zarqawi was hit that it also killed non-combatants. But you would not use the same tactic for a house that "might" have insurgents in it.

I'm not sure where this is going. Are you saying if a Marine or Soldier goes into a room full of shot up insurgents he (or she really) is supposed to play nice guy and see if there are any wounded needing treatment? I'm one of the many Americans against us being in Iraq, but by God if my son is ever in that situation, I want him to start blasting away and making sure those guys are all dead.

I'll get crap again for posting on this board but for what it's worth, I'm not trolling and I don't request a reply.

Just two thoughts to go with yours:

1. Private Jessica Lynch was a US soldier wounded by Iraqi troops and was taken to hospital and cared for there. According to your logic, she should have been "tapped twice."

2. If your son is wounded, which I sincerely hope he won't be, do you expect an insurgent to tap him twice to make sure he is dead or do you expect and hope he will be taken care of?

"I'm not sure where this is going. Are you saying if a Marine or Soldier goes into a room full of shot up insurgents he (or she really) is supposed to play nice guy and see if there are any wounded needing treatment?"

No.

What I'm saying is that some people are doing whatever they can to whip up hysteria- along the lines of "well, these savages chop off the heads of Americans, so anything we do is justified."

I don't have any problem with soldiers/marines considering the safety of their comrades to be the primary concern. What does concern me is that some may use a small number of beheadings to instill a "kill them all and let God sort them out" kind of mentality.

When that happens on a large scale, we will have surely lost the war...

"Corpsmen ARE expected to treat enemy wounded according to the Geneva Conventions. It's not fraud, waste, or abuse if he is using the tools given him in accordance with doctrine. Since the US military adheres (at least theoretically) to the Geneva Conventions, treating a wounded enemy combatant is doctrine."

Yup- as I recall, the poster is an active duty Army doc, and he's right. Everyone in the Army Medical Department is taught that at AIT or OBC- those in the medical department help all wounded to the best of their ability - and I'm sure its the same for Navy Corpsmen (I guess I can email my brother in law, a Navy Doc currently serving in the gulf to find out for sure).

"...Corpsmen ARE expected to treat enemy wounded according to the Geneva Conventions. It's not fraud, waste, or abuse if he is using the tools given him in accordance with doctrine. Since the US military adheres (at least theoretically) to the Geneva Conventions, treating a wounded enemy combatant is doctrine.

It is attitudes like this that recently got the Marine Special Forces kicked out of Afghanistan. "

Just as with a 19 y.o. Marine in Fallujah(shot in the arm), shot a sniper with an AT-4 and then gave the other cultist illegal combatants the finger, I think Cindy Shh-he-han's son died in that same building, the distinctions of combatants, illegal combatants, seeing your fellow warriors going down, explosives under bodies detonating, a lot of variables and strong emotions.

And yet, facing a society fielding warriors... you don't receive better than from Americans, Canadians and Brits.

2. If your son is wounded, which I sincerely hope he won't be, do you expect an insurgent to tap him twice to make sure he is dead or do you expect and hope he will be taken care of?

If my son is wounded and left where insurgents can get to him, he will be lucky if they "tap him twice". More than likely they will kill him on video.

Abe, I know you consider us all war criminals, so really there is no discussion with you. You've made up your beliefs about Americans, just like people with beliefs anwhere, they can't be shaken by the facts or logic.

I'm sorry, but what he is describing IS a war crime. It doesn't matter if the enemy is ignoring Geneva conventions. Part of what protects us as a military is living by a higher standard even if our enemies do not.

I would not agree with that. Like Derek said, it is often situational. I was taught even in basic training that if you are assaulting a position (say a hilltop), as you pass the enemy, you fire on those that you are not sure are dead. You don't move through enemy positions and leave potential hostiles at your back. You also don't take the time necessary to treat a single one of them until you secure the position. Once you secure the hilltop, you then release the medics to treat both the friendlies and the hostiles. I can't imagine any medic, in the middle of a urban warfare (MOUT) combat setting, stopping to treat a hostile while the rest of his team is still clearing the building.

It is one thing to kill someone because they are a threat. It is quite another to kill someone because they MIGHT be a threat.

When you are still in a hostile situation. As the OP states, that hostile IS still threat. There is no "might." Threat, by definition, need not ever cause harm - only need to have the potential to do so. If a terrorist points a loaded weapon at you, that is a threat regardless if that terrorist ever pulls the trigger. A suicide bomber is a threat regardless if their bomb fails. A wounded fanatic in Iraq is likely as much of a threat wounded as they were when in full health.

(c)Wounded.(i)Must be cared for.(ii)Repatriation if: (a)'Incapable of further service. (b)Agree not to take up arms again.B.Definition (1 949 Convention).1.The term "Wounded and Sick" is not defined in the GWS. Concerned that any definition would be misinterpreted, the drafters decided that the meaning of the words was a matter of "common sense and good faith." Pictet at 136.2.However, Article 8(a), Protocol I, contains the following widely accepted definition: "Persons, whether military or civilian, who, because of trauma, disease or other physical or mental disorder or disability, are in need of medical assistance or care and who refrain from any act of hostility."

So, using the Law of War Handbook, the Marine's actions, while distasteful, are in keeping with the law.

in your experience, is it common for the marines (or other soldiers) to shoot wounded insurgents as is claimed in the OP?How do you handle such situations?

It's common if the objective is not yet secured or on tactical entries. For example, when clearing a house where you have specific intelligence that it is used by terrorists/insurgents a common practice is to first toss a grenade into the room and then on entry finishing the targets. In this scenario the key is speed and there simply isn't time to ask the wounded to surrender. The problem is that I think this procedure has been misused by scared or inexperience leaders as an overcautious way of protecting their unit. Performing this sort of assault when there is reason to believe non-combatants are inside would be illegal in my mind. The force must always be proportionate to the threat and the risk of collateral damage.

I think I didn't make that very clear in my original response.

What is not ok is in a situation where aid can be reasonably given safely or there is time to follow procedure in disarming the target.

I'll give you a scenario. If a suicide bomber is running towards your position there is no question. You make him dead and there is no concern whatsoever that he may have been injured first. But if a person is just laying on the ground and you have time to check, it is not permissable to simply pump him full of rounds "just in case."

There can be mitigating circumstances which is why I always say it's bad to rush to judgement. Sometimes it's not obvious to outside observers what is going on and you have to trust that most soldiers and Marines will not behave in such a manner. But I also know that sometimes in combat boundaries are crossed and punishment must be given.

That's why I suspect this letter doesn't actually come from a Marine. I don't know anyone who would actually suggest that this is standard practice.

Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mind set that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to "take prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same. Marines end up getting hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

Ignoring all the obvious war crimes in this posts' suggestions, the precending paragraph has but one conclusion:

Our guys are severely short on manpower. Meaning an extra 20,000 isn't the band aid we're told over here it is. Another 500,000 or more is needed if we are to eliminate all the bad guys. Adding a band aid, will only delay the inevitable situation being played out over and over. And it's never going to stop them from fighting- it will only serve to create more enemies.

Simply put, we should not be placing our troops in such a predicament. If the only way to clear the area is to murder those not killed in the initial assualt, then it's either a tactical error for not deploying enough to secure the aftermath, or it's a crime. It's not the fault of the troops ordered into the building short of men to secure the area unless they have a choice- but it is their commanders and the CIC's fault for not providing nearly enough. That's a recipe guaranteed to fail.

"Success" can't be simply offing those who remain becuase we are understaffed. If it is, we might as well add beheadings to our own modus operandi.

I'm sorry, but what he is describing IS a war crime. It doesn't matter if the enemy is ignoring Geneva conventions. Part of what protects us as a military is living by a higher standard even if our enemies do not.

I'm sorry, but I believe it is not. The Geneva Convention refers to soldiers in uniform, not terrorists. If I am incorrect, then please cite chapter and verse. If I am correct, your post is about sentimentalism and squeamishness, not the GC.

Of course, ROE might dictate a process that differs from the OP, but that is still not the GC.

I also refer you to Churchill's narrow interpretation of the Geneva Convention, even when dealing with uniformed soldiers, from his series on WWII (also posted on Current Events):

"The enemy may have underrated the adverse conditions of fighting above and across the Channel compared with those which had prevailed in France and Belgium. That they regarded them as serious is shown by the efforts they made to organise an efficient Sea Rescue Service. German transport planes, marked with the Red Cross, began to appear in some numbers over the Channel in July and August whenever there was an air fight. we did not recognise this means of rescuing enemy pilots who had been shot down in action, in order that they migh come and bomb our civil population again. We rescued them ourselves whenever it was possible, and made them prisoners of war. But all German air ambulances were forced or shot down by our fighters on definite orders approved by the War Cabinet. The German crews and doctors on these machines professed astonishment at being treated in this way, and protested that it was contrary to the Geneva Convention. There was no mention of such a contingency in the Geneva convention, which had not contemplated this form of warfare. The Germans were not in a strong position to complain, in view of all the treaties, laws of war, and solemn agreements which they had violated without compunction whenever it suited them. they soon abandoned the experiment, and the work of sea rescue for both sides was carried out by our small craft, on which of course the Germans fired on every occasion."

1. Private Jessica Lynch was a US soldier wounded by Iraqi troops and was taken to hospital and cared for there. According to your logic, she should have been "tapped twice."

But isn't there a distinction here? Lynch was wounded by Iraqi troops (i.e. part of the “official” Iraqi army, in uniform, etc., etc.). I'm no expert in this area, but I don't think the US military was going around “tapping” those guys.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the facts here. But we are talking about “tapping” insurgents… Guys that are NOT abiding by the Geneva Conventions – not by a long shot. Yes, we are supposed to be “better” than the terrorists. But do we have to be suicidal? I mean, if these guys are going to break the rules in such an extreme manner (faking dead and blowing everyone up), how in the world can you fault the US military for taking what are some pretty reasonable measures in defending themselves?

2. If your son is wounded, which I sincerely hope he won't be, do you expect an insurgent to tap him twice to make sure he is dead or do you expect and hope he will be taken care of?

One reaps what one sows.

What can't you see these terrorists are reaping what THEY sow. They are acting in a completely uncivilized manner. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right. But one wrong should allow the innocent to reasonably protect themselves against future wrongs.

I think using the Geneva Convention as a guide in this conversation is a bit of legalism. The Convention's protocols were specifically designed to exclude partisans, insurgents, guerrillas, rebels, etc – regardless of their behavior, regardless of the political or strategic situation.Why? Well, consider that at the time of the first treaty, much of the world was still controlled by colonial European powers.As an early, caustic, critic pointed out: “This treaty allows Europeans to machine gun surrendered African tribesmen.”

And as others have noted, by the rules, the behavior of the Nazi's towards captured partisans during WW2 was exculpated.

Also, in parens, we shouldn't forget that our Afghani allies against the Taliban were not in uniform, not part of a formal army (unless you wish to accept warlord militias as authorized combatants…which opens up a rather can of worms), on the other hand, many of the Taliban forces were the “regular” army of that country – would the latter then be justified in any ruthless action against the former?

In a world were unconventional warfare is increasingly becoming the norm, we need to rethink what constitutes the ethics of armed conflict.

But isn't there a distinction here? Lynch was wounded by Iraqi troops .....I mean, if these guys are going to break the rules in such an extreme manner (faking dead and blowing everyone up), how in the world can you fault the US military for taking what are some pretty reasonable measures in defending themselves?

I am not really qualified to answer your question but several people have replied to my post so I'll try and clarify my position.

I personally don't make much of a distinction between a soldier of one country or another. We choose whom to call soldiers, whom to call terrorists and whom to call freedom fighters. It is clear that insurgents draw an advantage from not wearing a uniform. At the same time, it is clear from the way insurgent armies develop, that they are not in a position to order 50,000 uniforms to be made up. Apart from the waste of money, it would serve no purpose.

To them, the US Military is there illegally and in infringement of THEIR rights. They regard Iraq as THEIR coiuntry and the USA as invaders. THEY regard the US as having broken ALL the rules already.

I am not saying I agree with them, I am presenting their point of view.

I don't regard "playing dead" as breaking the rules and I am in agreement with the following: if a soldier has the job of clearing a house, a property or whatever and that property has been hit by shelling or small arms fire, the soldier should take all precautions to protect himself.

If upon entering the house, he sees wounded enemy combattants on the ground, I believe that he should do everything he can to ensure that his life is not at risk. If he suspects that the person is carrying a grenade or still carrying and is able to use a gun, he has the right to protect himself.

I do not believe that a US soldier or an insurgent has the right simply to kill wounded enemy combatants just because they are not part of what they consider to be a regular legal army.

I am accused often of despising the US military. That isn't true. I personally, however, do not feel that the military is something that is untouchable and beyond criticism or reproach and there are times, there have been occasions, when members of the US forces have acted in a way that is not disimilar to ways that insurgents have acted and which have drawn condemnation.

An American soldier believes that what he is doing is right.An insurgent feels the same way.

All this talk about hacking heads off with blunt knives (I suspet the knives are pretty sharp actually) is nonsense when you are dealing with people who's own view point is that their children are being decimated by 500 lb bombs and daisy cutters. It is just a point of view. There is no right or wrong in Iraq anymore except that it is simply put wrong to shed innocent blood. No one can argue that the US military is FOR AN INSURGENT, not a legitimate target. In this respect they handle with the weapons at their disposal. If that is playing possum, then that's the name of the game. The US soldier then has every right to call the situation as he sees it - but does not have the right to kill innocent bystanders caught by wounding fire because he cannot tell if they are an insurgent or not. "Tapping" a wounded person who cannot be identified as an enemy insurgent is murder.

I know: how do you tell them apart? Well, ask your commander in chief - he got you into this mess that I, along with anyone else who knew the Middle East well enough predicted four years ago. that's your quagmire right there and that is why your military is going to go nuts. Because the enemy is indistinguishable from the general population.

What can't you see these terrorists are reaping what THEY sow. They are acting in a completely uncivilized manner. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right. But one wrong should allow the innocent to reasonably protect themselves against future wrongs.

It's a chicken and egg thing. They'll point at the US and say "you started it with your stupid invasion."

Insurgents are made up of all sorts of people but certainly, some, will be people who have lost family members, innocent family members to the US forces. They probably say to themselves: 'they came here with planes, bombs and cruise missiles, they shoot us up at check points, search our houses, kill our family members - I ahve lost everything and have nothing to lose.'

Who is the person acting in an uncivilized manner? The Iraqi insurgent fighting for what he believes to be his country or the check point soldier who "lights up" a vehicle approaching the check point too fast although, as it turns out, there's just a family in the car with a few kids?

Please believe me when I say that I don't favor insurgents with their habist of blowing up innocent bystanders. But I personally don't see how an Iraq could infer much of a difference between that and the US soldier who accidentally does the same - the iraqi will namely be certain that the US soldier did it out of spite.

When I wrote you reap what you sow I was referring to the entire invasion. It's heartbreaking to see these 19, 20, 21 year old American kids go over there with their "kick a@@" attitude (from an interview on CBS) and return as hamburger meat because no one told them that they are dealing with real time death.

Iraq is a country which will never be appeased by an invading force. It just will not happen. To the end of their stay, US soldiers will have to defend against possum playing insurgents and to that day, the insurgents will continue to play possum and each one believes he is better than teh other.

"...I personally don't make much of a distinction between a soldier of one country or another. We choose whom to call soldiers, whom to call terrorists and whom to call freedom fighters. It is clear that insurgents draw an advantage from not wearing a uniform. At the same time, it is clear from the way insurgent armies develop, that they are not in a position to order 50,000 uniforms to be made up. Apart from the waste of money, it would serve no purpose.

To them, the US Military is there illegally and in infringement of THEIR rights. They regard Iraq as THEIR coiuntry and the USA as invaders. THEY regard the US as having broken ALL the rules already.

I am not saying I agree with them, I am presenting their point of view..."

Insurgents, militants... lots of incorrect verbage.

Words have meanings.

When we are discussing Eygptians and other nationalities in a foreign country and not fighting within the laws, and they are called "insurgents"... it's clearly just a bogus argument.

Illegal combatants are just that.

The entire civilised world has accorded participants in legit warfare status, and protections under those accords need not be stretched to cover those the enemy and their co-dependent enablers wish.

Sorry, but your idiot in chief and his minions disbanded the Iraqi military. The Iraqi soldiers of then are the insurgents of today. Same people, different time.

Abe, you finally said something I agree with. If you look at it from a cold perspective, the insurgents fighting US troops are going to be in civilian clothes, will do "dirty" tricks like IED's, fighting from Mosques, hiding in the civilian population, etc... It's the only way to effectively fight a much more militarily powerful enemy.

It's a sucky situation for people like my son that get thrown into the mix, because it's hard to fight to protect yourself against an enemy that is hard to identify. It's also hard in the case of running into wounded insurgents who may go for a last suicide attack when an American comes into the room.

I never wanted us to invade Iraq, the war that has resulted is much worse than I thought it would ever be, and I keep hearing that with a little more patience we can "win". At first after the invasion I thought we could "win" by seeing a more democratic government in Iraq, an maybe some stability in the Mideast. I doubt that's going to happen, not with the Iraqis fighting each other. We're told success is around the corner, and I am told that the only way to support soldiers like my son is to want us to stay in Iraq. I also am told that if we pull out we "lost" a war to terrorists.

This reminds me of Vietnam. We (the American people) were told repeatedly that the war was being won, and if we pulled out we were going to score the Commies a victory. Yet I never once remember hearing how we were going to win, or when it would happen. We are told the American people have no patience, yet we were involved with combat troops in Vietnam for about 10 years, which is a long time to be at war in a remote swamp that you can't really understand what the importance is.

Now we're hearing the same crap. How many times have we been told we are on the road to winning? How many times have we been told that the "new" plan would work. Rumsfeld is gone, and now Gates is going to be much smarter. I heard on the radio a rather heartbreaking soundbite of a guy who said he was an Army Ranger pleading with the American people to let us get the "job done". I felt bad for the guy, he lost a lot of friends, but what's the job to be done?

I'm really frustrated because I'm likely to see my son go for another tour there in a few years, I'll have to sweat for a year that dreaded knock on the door, grieve with my son over his friends that die, and get the e-mails from my son about ever more morally ambiguous situations he encounters, and awful things he sees.

What is all of this for? Where are we going with this? Is it really making us more secure, or just making the world hate us? Is it really keeping Iran in check, or just tying down our troops while Iran goes off and develops its own atom bomb?

Oh, and in my short time in Iraq, I did think it was rather odd that while we were "winning" that we had almost no Iraqi nationals working on the base, mortar attacks were regular (every couple of days), and of course you couldn't go outside the gates unless you were in prepared for combat.

I personally think pulling out is not losing. We can't help people set up a government when they are more interested in killing each other. After 6 years in that country, my patience has run out.

I believe Geneva only applies to military in uniform. In any event, I have zero problem with corpsmen not treating enemy when it is dangerous to do so.

Fighting insurgencies is full of moral issues that I wouldn't imagine you would face in a conventional war. You don't know who the enemy is, they will hide in the civilian population, and of course when you get into suicide attacks you really can't predict what a wounded person will do when you approach.

How do you deal with a war where everyone wants to kill everyone else, the enemy wears no uniforms, and they don't worry about putting civilians in danger? It makes my head spin to think about who hates who in Iraq. You have the Sunnis and Shiites killing each other, they both hate the Kurds, there are the Baathists, Al Qaeda, Iranians...

My son told me that one way you can tell a suicide bomber is he is handcuffed the steering wheel of the car he's driving. From what my son told me and what I read, people are forced to become suicide bombers. That's downright creepy.

It seems that Iraq has become a complete madhouse where the normal rules of civilized society have disappeared. How do you fight such a war? How do you fight it and maintain your own morality? Finally, is it me, or shouldn't the Iraqis themselves want to have some sort of semblance of a government and law and order?

Shouldn't the Iraqis want government and law and order? What an interesting question. The short answer is "yes", which seems simple enough. But as Clausewitz noted, simple doesn't mean easy.

Mankind has developed essentially two forms of society - cooperative and tribal. Imagine walking down the road and meeting a stranger. You begin talking to him. Why? If you come from a cooperative society you are trying to determine if there is any reason why you shouldn't try to help each other. However if you come from a tribal society you'll be trying to find out if there is any reason why you shouldn't try to kill each other.Iraq is a tribal society.

If a working government were to exist, it would mean somebody won. The last time this happened in Iraq was Saddam's victory, after which he purged everyone who hadn't supported him. This is typical. It is very easy to have democracy once. What happens to the losers? In tribal societies they tend to be killed or enslaved. So tell me - which is riskier? Ongoing war or the possibility of loss?

I still see no one in Iraq who understands and embraces concepts like compromise and social mobility and process and rule of law. Look at Anbar, where I understand a tribal leader has thrown out AQ and is helping the Marines. He isn't doing this because he believes in compromise and building a stong society for the future. He's doing it be cause it's the best deal he can cut for his tribe right now.

Top-down structures being dictated from a national govt simply ignore the realities of tribalism. Failure to understand this has been our single greatest failure.

Btw, I think references to Viet Nam completely miss the mark and show the poverty of America's knowledge of history. Viet Nam was lost the day Diem was assassinated with our complicity. There is no comparable situation in Iraq. A far better comparison is the Philipines after the Spanish-American War. There are tremendous lessons to be learned there.

And I really need to stop posting politcal screeds here, but as long as I don't name names I figure I'm OK.

I personally don't make much of a distinction between a soldier of one country or another. We choose whom to call soldiers, whom to call terrorists and whom to call freedom fighters. It is clear that insurgents draw an advantage from not wearing a uniform. At the same time, it is clear from the way insurgent armies develop, that they are not in a position to order 50,000 uniforms to be made up. Apart from the waste of money, it would serve no purpose.

You miss the whole point of what the uniform is for. A uniform may give a soldier protection through camouflage, but it's main purpose--the reason for its uniformity--is to easily identify the combatant. It deliberately makes him a target that is easily identified form the civilians around him. This is specifically to distinguish him from the civilians and, in so doing, grant sanctuary to the civilian.

When "insurgents" refuse to don a uniform or any other designation they are attempting to gain the protection of that sanctuary that is afforded by modern (mostly Western) armies during combat. But such sanctuary is fleeting as only the most deluded of cultures will refuse to defend themselves against those who are attacking them. The unavoidable result is that eventually the "insurgent" removes the sanctuary that is afforded to the civilian.

What you are arguing is that because the "insurgent" eschews the accepted "laws of war" they should somehow be allowed better treatment than if they had not done so at all. Their actions deserve to bring down on them vehement criticism from everyone who cares about the GC, and not lead second guessing of their attackers. For that matter, the entire concept of giving them any benefit-of-the-doubt degrades the entire concept of the GC. Those that try to abide by them are criticized when they fail and those that do not are given verbal, if not moral, support.

That people don't understand this and continue to spout such drivel as:"Please believe me when I say that I don't favor insurgents with their habist of blowing up innocent bystanders. But I personally don't see how an Iraq could infer much of a difference between that and the US soldier who accidentally does the same - the iraqi will namely be certain that the US soldier did it out of spite."

This is plain ignorance of the GC, what it means, and what happens to it when you invert the morality involved.

It seems that Iraq has become a complete madhouse where the normal rules of civilized society have disappeared. How do you fight such a war? How do you fight it and maintain your own morality? Finally, is it me, or shouldn't the Iraqis themselves want to have some sort of semblance of a government and law and order?

The main problem is that even if you don't want to be there to deal with it, they would still like to be here doing the same thing.

Many people think this is a flippant response. But it's not.

I am an Israeli and they have been dealing with this for decades. The mentality you are dealing with really does believe that getting us out of the region is only the beginning. They believe that any land that was once Muslim should still be Muslim. Just look at what they say about wanting to regain Al Andalusia (Muslim-era Spain). And what they say about wanting to expand those regions.

Don't forget that the last time Islam was on the expansion was as recent as the the 1600s. That may seem a long time ago, but they still view the crusades, which occurred nearly a thousand years ago, as being a formative element of their history and something to be emulated.

The only chance we have of opposing this is to try and change the culture. It can be done, but it's not easy and it's going to take a long time. (Just think that England declared a war on slavery in 1800 or so and it took them nearly 60 years to accomplish this.)

"It seems that Iraq has become a complete madhouse where the normal rules of civilized society have disappeared. How do you fight such a war? How do you fight it and maintain your own morality? Finally, is it me, or shouldn't the Iraqis themselves want to have some sort of semblance of a government and law and order?"

.....................................................

The main problem is that even if you don't want to be there to deal with it, they would still like to be here doing the same thing.

Many people think this is a flippant response. But it's not.

I am an Israeli and they have been dealing with this for decades. The mentality you are dealing with really does believe that getting us out of the region is only the beginning. They believe that any land that was once Muslim should still be Muslim. Just look at what they say about wanting to regain Al Andalusia (Muslim-era Spain). And what they say about wanting to expand those regions.

Don't forget that the last time Islam was on the expansion was as recent as the the 1600s. That may seem a long time ago, but they still view the crusades, which occurred nearly a thousand years ago, as being a formative element of their history and something to be emulated.

The only chance we have of opposing this is to try and change the culture. It can be done, but it's not easy and it's going to take a long time. (Just think that England declared a war on slavery in 1800 or so and it took them nearly 60 years to accomplish this.)"

bozob

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You have to remember we have a lot of responses here from those who either knowingly or unwittingly hold 'situational ethics' positions.

Throw in the co-dependents, oil on the water' groups, cooperative (useful idiot/'tools' of the 'Progressive Internationalists, Chamberlainists...

Not surprising though in a society which 'enables' - funding programmes for trial lawyers to the tune of about $30 Billion annually in New York state alone.i.e. Seat belt mandatory usage, rumble strips along the highways and centerlines, warnings... ad infinum.

The news this morning had a piece on a man who is sueing a dry cleaners for $65 million.What for?Lost one pair of pants, found them and returned them, even offered to settle.

You have to remember we have a lot of responses here from those who either knowingly or unwittingly hold 'situational ethics' positions.

Throw in the co-dependents, oil on the water' groups, cooperative (useful idiot/'tools' of the 'Progressive Internationalists, Chamberlainists...

Not surprising though in a society which 'enables' - funding programmes for trial lawyers to the tune of about $30 Billion annually in New York state alone.i.e. Seat belt mandatory usage, rumble strips along the highways and centerlines, warnings... ad infinum.

The news this morning had a piece on a man who is sueing a dry cleaners for $65 million.What for?Lost one pair of pants, found them and returned them, even offered to settle.

Oh no. Gotta clog up the court system.

Tigerman,Maybe it's me, but I'm finding your posts to be very confusing. We're going from shooting insurgents that are pretending to be dead to Prime Minister Chamberlain to nuisance suits? Since I was against our invading Iraq, but feel that shooting people pretending to be dead to make sure they don't kill you is OK in certain situations (situational ethics), am I going to sue my cleaner for millions of dollars if he loses my clothes?

I am an Israeli and they have been dealing with this for decades. The mentality you are dealing with really does believe that getting us out of the region is only the beginning. They believe that any land that was once Muslim should still be Muslim. Just look at what they say about wanting to regain Al Andalusia (Muslim-era Spain). And what they say about wanting to expand those regions.

You have my sympthaties for your security situation. I can't imagine what it is like to be surrounded by people that are dedicated to seeing you die. Fortunately, the idea of getting a greater Muslim empire together would be rather difficult since the fanatics hate each other too. Not that it matters, you can see what is happening with acts of terrorism around the world, riots in France, and so on.

The only chance we have of opposing this is to try and change the culture. It can be done, but it's not easy and it's going to take a long time. (Just think that England declared a war on slavery in 1800 or so and it took them nearly 60 years to accomplish this.)

I think that has to come from the inside. I don't think that's impossible, look what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did for Turkey after WWI.

I think that has to come from the inside. I don't think that's impossible, look what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did for Turkey after WWI.

It can be both...Sometimes, for it to come from the inside, you have to eliminate internal opposition/oppression. Look at what eliminating Hitler did after WWII.

There are no set rules in this. It is possible to make successful democracies where previously there was totalitarianism. It's even possible to change cultures (Japan). It's not easy and it certainly more difficult when the neighboring countries feel a need to see it fail.

There are no set rules in this. It is possible to make successful democracies where previously there was totalitarianism. It's even possible to change cultures (Japan). It's not easy and it certainly more difficult when the neighboring countries feel a need to see it fail.

China's culture has also changed tremendously. However, in China and Japan there were major traumatic events to push the radical changes. Also, both societies were trying to get into the modern world anyway. In the Mideast, my impression was that the imams and various fundy loonies want to maintain the stranglehold they have on society and are experts at exploiting the emotional hot points of the general population.

All the ills of society are blamed on the US, Israel, and Jews in general. If the three of us could be wiped out they wouldn't live in poverty, their kids wouldn't do drugs, the women would be meek...

That's just my impression from the few times I was over there. I think it might be a good use of a few million dollars to put into some propaganda efforts there. Saudi Arabia funds the printing of all kinds of fundamentalist pamphlets floating around there that blames virtually eveything on Israel and the US. Maybe we need to be out to be circulating more pamphlets pointing the finger where it needs to be pointed.

Of course maybe that's why the imams have gone so ballistic at Salman Rushdie, the cartoon of Mohammed, and the reason that Van Gogh was murdered. I think effective media pressure against them is a greater threat than bombs.

I can't imagine what it is like to be surrounded by people who are dedicated to seeing you dieFwiw, you might read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. There is nothing new under the sun.

the idea of getting a greater Muslim empire together would be rather difficultWhat do you want to bet that some mandarin wrote the same thing about the Mongols just before Ghengis Khan launched his conquest?

---Regarding propaganda, someone who is smarter than I am has suggested that we load 10 million iPods with Britney Spears and Fergie videos, and then distribute them throughout the Middle East. I believe he called these cultural WMDs, and that they would be enormously cost effective.

China's culture has also changed tremendously. However, in China and Japan there were major traumatic events to push the radical changes.

I think the invasion of Iraq qualifies as "major traumatic events".

:-)

Also, both societies were trying to get into the modern world anyway. In the Mideast, my impression was that the imams and various fundy loonies want to maintain the stranglehold they have on society and are experts at exploiting the emotional hot points of the general population.

Which leads to the $64,000 question. Just how many in the MidEast want a more modern world as opposed to not having it and how much are they being held back by those totalitarian loonies (whether theological or not)?

I supported the invasion probably because I am an optimist at heart. I believe that there are enough people there who want to modernize and that they aren't being allowed to build themselves up to doing it because of the loonies.

In fact, I think that the problems we are facing from terrorism are precisely because those loonies see that they are losing their culture of control to the desire of the majority to join the modern world. It wasn't so much the American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (how many actually saw these anyway?) that angered the Islamists so much as it was the guys sitting at cafes in Egypt watching Baywatch while using all forms of technology that could not be built in the region (except Israel) let alone developed there.

Of course maybe that's why the imams have gone so ballistic at Salman Rushdie, the cartoon of Mohammed, and the reason that Van Gogh was murdered. I think effective media pressure against them is a greater threat than bombs.

I agree. I also think that this is why the conflict exists in the first place. (See above.)

If this really is a conflict of cultures (and I think it is) then the only way to win is to defeat their culture. We can start doing it now, or we can wait until later. But the conflict is already here.

My own opinion is that waiting will only lead to a more expensive and deadlier conflict.

Regarding propaganda, someone who is smarter than I am has suggested that we load 10 million iPods with Britney Spears and Fergie videos, and then distribute them throughout the Middle East. I believe he called these cultural WMDs, and that they would be enormously cost effective.

I supported the invasion probably because I am an optimist at heart. I believe that there are enough people there who want to modernize and that they aren't being allowed to build themselves up to doing it because of the loonies.

In fact, I think that the problems we are facing from terrorism are precisely because those loonies see that they are losing their culture of control to the desire of the majority to join the modern world. It wasn't so much the American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (how many actually saw these anyway?) that angered the Islamists so much as it was the guys sitting at cafes in Egypt watching Baywatch while using all forms of technology that could not be built in the region (except Israel) let alone developed there.

Bozob

My thought was to bomb the region with catalogues. Everything from Sears to Schucks to Victoria's Secret. How much would it cost if our governments in North America paid for an extra 5,000 copies per run? I am not being facetious. What the loonies can't promise is (but in an afterlife) abundance.

Quick story. I have long-time friends in Moscow who told me this. He and she went to an 'approved' American-made movie (this was before glasnost) and, after, he said, “Wow, those car chases were really good!” She said, “When they were in their apartment did you see their refrigerator and stove?”

I think that much of the changes made in Russia came about because people could see the world around them and how much the outside world actually had. Maybe that will cause the downfall of the mullahs.

Regarding propaganda, someone who is smarter than I am has suggested that we load 10 million iPods with Britney Spears and Fergie videos, and then distribute them throughout the Middle East. I believe he called these cultural WMDs, and that they would be enormously cost effective.

They've already kinda sort done this. Problem is, or so I am told, the locals call it the "Voice of Israel". Apparently we aren't very good at masking the message and the human mind is generally just too good at rooting it out.

Regarding propaganda, someone who is smarter than I am has suggested that we load 10 million iPods with Britney Spears and Fergie videos, and then distribute them throughout the Middle East. I believe he called these cultural WMDs, and that they would be enormously cost effective.

They've already kinda sort done this. Problem is, or so I am told, the locals call it the "Voice of Israel". Apparently we aren't very good at masking the message and the human mind is generally just too good at rooting it out.

-spookysquid

Doesn't matter what they call it, they listen to it. They may call it whatever and may do so to show they're not anti-their-government yet they listen.

When the European Voice of America started the propagandists thought it would be a great vehicle to 'tell the message' but saner heads said, “No, just report the news as it happens and give news those behind the Iron Curtain don't get in their news services.” It worked.

About that time Radio Moscow on shortwave was telling stuff about the West that was without exception deplorable. It got so boring that I stopped listening because it was so predictably dull listening to how our leadership was selling us out. Boring.

Sadly, the Iraqi insurgents are MUCH better at propoganda than us and the sad reality is our news networks are some of their biggest tools. They see the politics in the US and for the insurgents realize all they need to do are a few fantastic acts that will headline CNN which is breaking the will of the American people. Then yes, there is also a lot of manipulation by the Mullahs, but the real truth behind the strength of the insurgency is simple economics. The diehard extremists are far fewer than the world would believe, but being an insurgent pays, and it pays well. A couple of hundred dollars to place a bomb? For your average Joe Schmoe that's a big payday! The insurgents abundance of money provides a limitless number of pawns. If we could get the populace back to work, particularly military aged males, it would be a huge step in the right direction. We can't even consistently and reliably distribute money throughout the Iraqi Forces which wrecks havoc on morale. Then when they do get paid they have no banking system which means that they take a week on leave EVERY month to bring their money back to their family.

If we want to win this war it's going to take a LONG time as someone above referenced this should be compared with the Phillipines Occupation as opposed to Vietnam.

Regarding propaganda, someone who is smarter than I am has suggested that we load 10 million iPods with Britney Spears and Fergie videos, and then distribute them throughout the Middle East. I believe he called these cultural WMDs, and that they would be enormously cost effective.

My impression from what I saw is that is precisely what is causing a backlash. What I saw is a bunch of mullahs that don't want to lose control, men that want to continue to treat women as cattle, and a lot of parents that see their children getting out of control with drugs, sex, and juvenile delinquency. The combination is quite a backlash against the West, and the US in particular.

They listen for the music and turn it off for the designated "news" blocks. It is a very different scenario from the days you remember.

Oddly the place it has some value is Iran yet we refuse to give the Iranian opposition the power to bust through the signal jammers. But in Iraq they think we're converting them to Judaism through the airwaves and we do it anyway. Seriously.

PS They're right. We always said we'd come back to Babylon some day. Mwahaha.

Oddly the place it has some value is Iran yet we refuse to give the Iranian opposition the power to bust through the signal jammers. But in Iraq they think we're converting them to Judaism through the airwaves and we do it anyway. Seriously.

PS They're right. We always said we'd come back to Babylon some day. Mwahaha.

I've always gotten a chuckle out of conspiracy theories. The whole idea that ANY ethnic group of people can get together in a room and agree on one thing is preposterous. Go a few steps down from an ethnic group, and you have a family. Think about your last family reunion and how well anybody agreed on anything. I couldn't get my family to agree on where to go out to dinner, much less on how to take over the world. Expand that to an ethnic group and see how stupid that whole idea is.

That's on the same plane with believing everything is pink outside. However, believing in deep dark conspiracies is a good way to put blame on your troubles on someone else instead of looking inward. That makes it cross the line from funny to very dangerous.

"Tigerman,Maybe it's me, but I'm finding your posts to be very confusing. We're going from shooting insurgents that are pretending to be dead to Prime Minister Chamberlain to nuisance suits? Since I was against our invading Iraq, but feel that shooting people pretending to be dead to make sure they don't kill you is OK in certain situations (situational ethics), am I going to sue my cleaner for millions of dollars if he loses my clothes?"BCF

Sorry for the delay in answering sir.

I posted that from Tejas! and I'm in Portland now.

I do throw some examples around, sure some are not germane.. but they illustrate points.

We don't have one headline on the 40k dead on our highways each year, a large and growing travesty.

Example: The bus crash in the Atlanta area is one example of the decline in quality standards in Interstate system signage which directly contributed to those deaths.

Did the media follow up and ferret out this? Nope.

The headlines are simply reserved for political influence, not to the tell 'Joe Q. and Ethel Public' the who, what, when, where, how.

Or as Joe Friday said, "Just the facts Maam."

We're paying farmers not to plant, we set price ceilings for their products. Are you similarly as well 'supported?

And so, we have tabloid and org 'educated' citizens, who receive what they 'believe' and say from sole source and 'word or mouth' with no contrasted data in the favoured data outlets or personal vetting.

Mine are simply examples of the decay of citizen efforts, personal, community and nationwide, voting, management of their 'public servants'.

Doesn't matter what they call it, they listen to it. They may call it whatever and may do so to show they're not anti-their-government yet they listen.

They listen for the music and turn it off for the designated "news" blocks. It is a very different scenario from the days you remember.

-spookysquid

...but, hope springs eternal...

Admittedly, I did write on past experiences. However your post, above, did cause me to scurry to the phone to call those a tad more cognizant and more up to date on foreign language transmissions than this old coot. I found you're partially right yet it was ever thus: listeners did (do) turn down the volume of the 'news blocks' yet many listen to the spoken voice news/sports items (albeit closer to the set so the neighbors don't hear).

What I found most interesting is that, in the past several years, while shortwave broadcasting continues, there's been a movement towards satellite and Internet communication. Because of this blocking technology is now centered on these yet not one country has found a means to block satellite other than ban receivers. Also, with the Internet, closing down one site access isn't the answer because another site can pop up in minutes and can be linked. This is a far cry from the times when radio jamming foiled transmissions – my era.

What I did not realize, being somewhat out of the loop these days, is how persuasive satellite and the Internet is in getting the word across. I thought it would take more years than it has taken. Part of this is blogs and how they are quoted but what is prevalent is that blogs in-country contributes far more than some realize. What I see, from this, is some countries are not as secure as they believe they are in withholding information to the outside world.

As far as our transmissions (western) from what I was told, the precepts of not being blatant are still held to. The premise of tell fact so that other fact is accepted still reigns. It's a long, long way from Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw.